Whether district court's order dismissing case 6:20-ap-55 with prejudice is a final order that Eleventh Circuit must review

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : Eighty (80) Equity Security Holders each owning a house valued between $500,000-$850,000 control the HOA. After Justin Luna met with the 80 Equity Security Holders to convince them go bankrupt, 79 equity security holders voted to go ahead with it, and ’ each equity security holder put forth $312.5 to pay Justin Luna to file case 6:20-bk-01346. App.13a-20a, App.100a-165a. ; Alice filed case 6:20-ap-55 to request Judge Karen Jennemann, in this case or take action in case 6:20-bk01346, to compel assets and property information (such as values of HOA common properties, all of the 79 houses and other assets and income of the 79 equity security holders) and to prevent 79 equity security holders from selling any assets or to take new debts without court’s approval. Judge Jennemann first confirmed Debtor’s plan then dismissed case 6:20-ap-55 with prejudice. District court Judge Wendy Berger affirmed on a different ground by stating “A reviewing court may affirm on any ground” and she only reversed the basis for ; dismissal and directed Judge Jennemann use the basis of “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” App.3a-10a. Alice appealed, which Eleventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by ruling district court’s order is not a final order because “bankruptcy court will have to exercise “significant judicial activity’ on remand.” App.1la-2a. The questions : presented are: 1. Whether district court’s order dismissing case 6:20-ap-55 with prejudice is a final order that Eleventh Circuit must review. ii 2. Whether both district court’s order and bankruptcy court’s order denying with prejudice a motion to compel critical assets information and denying the protection of bankruptcy estate under case 6:20-bk01346 are final orders that Eleventh Circuit must review. ; 3. Whether bankruptcy court’s only activity in : remand of merely replacing basis for dismissal with “fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” is “significant judicial activity” that could . warrant the Eleventh Circuit to deny its jurisdiction of the appeal. , 4. Whether 11th Circuit’s using “significant judicial activity” test without specificity as to what those activities are in its process to determine if an order is final order or not is a permitted way to determine order’s finality.